1 2026:CGHC:22780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2481 of 2026 1 - Joseph Tirki S/o Basiya Tirki Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gangapur, Nalapara Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Surguja Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Nazul, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, PL. (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate application before the competent authority ventilating his grievance. It is, however, submitted that vide order dated 13.03.2026, the latest order of removal has been passed by the concerned Tahsildar. Therefore, it is prayed that the competent authority be directed to consider AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.16 14:12:22 +0530 2 and decide the application, proposed to be filed by the petitioner, within some stipulated time. It is further prayed that till disposal of such application, the Tahsildar be restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner. 2. Opposing the aforesaid submission, learned State counsel submits that proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code had already been initiated and concluded against the petitioner as far back as in the year 2020, and the said order has never been challenged by the petitioner before any competent forum. It is further contended that the petitioner is now seeking to derive benefit from an application by taking recourse to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nagariya Kshetron Ke Awasheen Vyakti Ko Pattadhariti Adhikar Niyam, 2023, which came into force only in the year 2023. According to the learned State counsel, the benefit of the said Rules cannot be extended retrospectively, particularly when proceedings under Section 248 had already culminated prior to the enforcement of the said Rules. It is also submitted that, in furtherance of notice dated 13.03.2026, the superstructure allegedly raised by the petitioner has already been demolished. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot now seek protection against dispossession from the property in question, and therefore no indulgence is warranted by this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 3 particularly the fact that although the order under Section 248 was passed in the year 2020, no consequential notice or action appears to have been taken thereafter for a considerable period of time, and further considering that the petitioner had deposited the fine amount and continued in possession of the disputed property, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy available under law. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the competent authority/forum having jurisdiction over the matter and file an appropriate application within a period of 15 days from today. In the event such application is filed within the stipulated period, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 45 days, strictly in accordance with law. Till the decision on the application to be filed by the petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Avinash